Gender Essentialism

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:24 am
Sorry, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're an essentialist.
You really do NOT read ALL of what I write, do you? Or, you obviously do NOT or can NOT understand what I write.

Obviously one can NOT be OPEN while they are believing some thing is true, right, and/or correct. To be some so called "essentialist" one would have to be believing some thing. I do not believe any thing is true, right, and/or correct. I am completely OPEN, and therefore, for those two reasons, I am NOT an "essentialist".
So now, you do not believe that "organs" define the difference between men and women?
I NEVER did believe that. In case you have not yet HEARD: I do NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.

Seriously, how long does it take a human being to see, understand, and comprehend THIS?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm You want to say now that you got that bit wrong?
How could have I got any thing "wrong"?

I said what I see, and then said: Unless anyone can show otherwise.

I am NOT stating any thing is absolutely true, right, nor even correct. If any one can show otherwise is true, right, and/or correct, then that IS 'what IS' true, right, and/or correct.

Have you really not understood this, in what I have been saying, yet?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you stand by it, you're an "essentialist."
If I stand by 'what'?

What is the 'it' in your sentence here?

And, just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. I do NOT stand by what I write. What I write are just the views and thoughts within this body, which, for the umpteen time, COULD BE PARTLY OR FULLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you drop it now, you're inconsistent,
If I drop 'what' now, exactly?

What is the 'it' in your sentence here now?

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm but I'll accept that you are unable to detect any essential difference between men and women, and move on.
Define the word 'men', and then define the word 'women', and then I will be able to tell you if I detect any essential difference.

Will you do that?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm Which do you want to do?
Which do I want to do in regards to 'what' exactly?

What are you even referring to here now?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:44 am

You really do NOT read ALL of what I write, do you? Or, you obviously do NOT or can NOT understand what I write.

Obviously one can NOT be OPEN while they are believing some thing is true, right, and/or correct. To be some so called "essentialist" one would have to be believing some thing. I do not believe any thing is true, right, and/or correct. I am completely OPEN, and therefore, for those two reasons, I am NOT an "essentialist".
So now, you do not believe that "organs" define the difference between men and women?
I NEVER did believe that. In case you have not yet HEARD: I do NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.
Yes. I can see you're just a fount of knowledge.

You can drop the word "believe," and the problem's the same. Put in "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or whatever, and drop "believe," and you've got the same incoherence in your view.
I said what I see, and then said: Unless anyone can show otherwise.
All that means is you're an essentialist at the moment, but are open to being shown otherwise. It certainly doesn't suggest you're not an essentialist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you stand by it, you're an "essentialist."
If I stand by 'what'?
Your claim that "organs" make a difference.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you drop it now, you're inconsistent,
If I drop 'what' now, exactly?
The "organs make a difference" idea.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm
So now, you do not believe that "organs" define the difference between men and women?
I NEVER did believe that. In case you have not yet HEARD: I do NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.
Yes. I can see you're just a fount of knowledge.

You can drop the word "believe," and the problem's the same. Put in "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or whatever, and drop "believe," and you've got the same incoherence in your view.
This is where you are WRONG. If you do not start out with what is right from the start, then you are wrong till thee end.

Drop the word 'believe' and that changes things drastically. Once you learn and fathom this, then you will start to see more clearly, and start understanding me a lot better as well.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
I said what I see, and then said: Unless anyone can show otherwise.
All that means is you're an essentialist at the moment, but are open to being shown otherwise.
Seriously no one could be as blind as you are being here.

I am NOT an "essentialist". This is your BELIEF, ONLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm It certainly doesn't suggest you're not an essentialist.
'What' does not suggest that I am not an "essentialist?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you stand by it, you're an "essentialist."
If I stand by 'what'?
Your claim that "organs" make a difference.
Do you disagree that the sexual organs of body do not make a difference?

Also, you will really need to lose your belief that I am an "essentialist", that is; If you really do want to understand thee actual Truth of things here.

But if you do not want to understand what thee actual Truth IS, then go right ahead and assume and believe whatever you want to believe is true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:30 pm If you drop it now, you're inconsistent,
If I drop 'what' now, exactly?
The "organs make a difference" idea.
Absolutely EVERY thing in the Universe "makes a difference". If they did not, then absolutely EVERY thing would "just be the same", OBVIOUSLY.

EVERY 'thing' that has a DIFFERENT label is, obviously, DIFFERENT. Otherwise there would be no need for DIFFERENT labels.

If you seriously believe that two OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT set of sexual organs do NOT "make a difference", then that is perfectly fine with me. But, I think if you looked into this further that you will find the "sexual organs" on a human body DO "make a difference" on how older human beings look at and see those bodies.

But none of this makes 'me' some so called "essentialist". For example, what essentially makes a 'human', a 'human', is the human body. The 'human body' is essentially different than EVERY other animal because of the 'body' itself. Now, just because this is a fact, HOW and WHY do you propose some one just expressing this fact makes that one some so called "essentialist"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:05 pm

I NEVER did believe that. In case you have not yet HEARD: I do NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.
Yes. I can see you're just a fount of knowledge.

You can drop the word "believe," and the problem's the same. Put in "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or whatever, and drop "believe," and you've got the same incoherence in your view.
This is where you are WRONG.Drop the word 'believe' and that changes things drastically.
I've not only let you do that, I've invited you to do that. It changes nothing.

So you don't "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or any other such synonym, that "organs" make a difference between men and women?

That's what you're now saying?
I am NOT an "essentialist".

So I'm guessing right here: you don't believe male and female organs constitute a "difference"?
Do you disagree that the sexual organs of body do not make a difference?
That's a double negative.

I'm not sure that's what you meant to say. Check your sentence there: as you've left it, it's the equivalent of "So you agree that sexual organs make a difference," because the "dis-" and "not" cancel each other out grammatically.

Did you mean that?
If you seriously believe that two OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT set of sexual organs do NOT "make a difference", then that is perfectly fine with me.

I didn't say what I thought about that. I only asked about your view. And now you have said both that organs make a difference, and that they don't. So I can't really say what you think...you contradict yourself on that.

You seem to labour under the delusion that "gender essentialist" is some kind of insult. It's not. It's simply a way of describing whether or not a person recognizes some fundamental difference between men and women, regardless of what that particular difference may be in specific. It's a neutral term.

You can be it if you want. If you don't want to be it, though, you're going to have to say that distinct organs do not constitute any significant difference between males and females. And that seems a little contradictory to say, in itself.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:31 pm
Yes. I can see you're just a fount of knowledge.

You can drop the word "believe," and the problem's the same. Put in "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or whatever, and drop "believe," and you've got the same incoherence in your view.
This is where you are WRONG.Drop the word 'believe' and that changes things drastically.
I've not only let you do that, I've invited you to do that. It changes nothing.
But WHY let me do that and WHY invite me to do 'that', what I am NOT even doing anyway. It is YOU who is doing 'that'. NOT ME.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm So you don't "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or any other such synonym, that "organs" make a difference between men and women?

That's what you're now saying?
That is NOT what I am now saying, nor what I was ever saying before.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
I am NOT an "essentialist".

So I'm guessing right here: you don't believe male and female organs constitute a "difference"?
STILL after countless times I do NOT believe ANY thing. I have NO beliefs. I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing.

You can guess for the rest of eternity. But you will usually be more WRONG than you are ever right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
Do you disagree that the sexual organs of body do not make a difference?
That's a double negative.
Do you agree that the sexual organs of a body do make a difference?

Do you agree that the sexual organs of a body do not make a difference?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm I'm not sure that's what you meant to say.
If and when you STOP making assumptions, and just answer the question, then some readers will NOT be thinking that you will try just about anything to deflect away from what is obviously being pointed out here now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm Check your sentence there: as you've left it, it's the equivalent of "So you agree that sexual organs make a difference," because the "dis-" and "not" cancel each other out grammatically.
And is correct grammar or whatever it is called ALL of what you are concerned about here?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm Did you mean that?
Yes.

If the two cancel each other out grammatically, then it would more or less mean the exact same thing.

Just because some thing is written grammatically incorrect but you want me to know that the two cancel each other out, then that means you know what the question was actually asking.

By the way, the only time I find myself being asked a clarifying question by you is the only time you already KNOW what the actual answer is anyway. You even showed me what my grammatical error was and also told me what the right answer IS.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
If you seriously believe that two OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT set of sexual organs do NOT "make a difference", then that is perfectly fine with me.

I didn't say what I thought about that.
I KNOW you did not previously. And, I also KNOW you still have not now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm I only asked about your view.
And, I asked you about your view, which it appears you clearly want to detract away from answering now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm And now you have said both that organs make a difference, and that they don't.
When did I EVER say that organs do not make a difference?

You really do read into my words things that are clearly NOT there. Unless of course you can show and prove otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm So I can't really say what you think...you contradict yourself on that.
You would have to PROVE this first. Otherwise this is just your own already gained assumptions, which are leading you to see and/or believe things, which are obviously NOT true at all. Unless of course you can and will prove otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm You seem to labour under the delusion that "gender essentialist" is some kind of insult.
NOT AT ALL.

I have just TOLD you that I am NOT an "essentialist".

If you read into that, what you are assuming and/or believing here, then so be it. I really do not care.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm It's not.
I NEVER "laboured" at all. Because I was NEVER under the delusion that "gender essentialist" is some kind of insult at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm It's simply a way of describing whether or not a person recognizes some fundamental difference between men and women, regardless of what that particular difference may be in specific. It's a neutral term.
Do you recognize some fundamental difference between men and women?

If yes, then what are those fundamental differences you recognize?

But if no, then okay.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm You can be it if you want.
I can be 'what' exactly if I want?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm If you don't want to be it, though, you're going to have to say that distinct organs do not constitute any significant difference between males and females. And that seems a little contradictory to say, in itself.
You have laboured on with this enough now have you not?

I have already informed you since page 3 what my view is. This view has NOT changed one bit.

Now, you have an underlying motive for this thread, so when will you ever get around to exposing that out in the open for everyone else to also recognize and see?

I have asked you a couple of times already: Would you now like to move onto the next part of your "argument" to prove that those already held beliefs of yours are actually true, right, and correct?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:49 pm This is where you are WRONG.Drop the word 'believe' and that changes things drastically.
I've not only let you do that, I've invited you to do that. It changes nothing.
But WHY let me do that and WHY invite me to do 'that',
Because you're whining pointlessly about the word "believe," when that word-choice is not necessary to the point anyway.

So my advice: get over it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm So you don't "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or any other such synonym, that "organs" make a difference between men and women?

That's what you're now saying?
That is NOT what I am now saying, nor what I was ever saying before.
Well, you've said both that "organs" distinguish women from men, and that they don't. Look back. If you misspoke, fine. But pick a horse and ride it, or you just seem irrational.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm Check your sentence there: as you've left it, it's the equivalent of "So you agree that sexual organs make a difference," because the "dis-" and "not" cancel each other out grammatically.
And is correct grammar or whatever it is called ALL of what you are concerned about here?
No. I was concerned to understand your view...if you actually have one that can be understood, which is starting to look more doubtful. You can't seem to make yourself clear...only irritable and adamant, but no more consistent than before.
Do you recognize some fundamental difference between men and women?
Sure.
If yes, then what are those fundamental differences you recognize?
Oh, I'll happily tell you.

Many.

I would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine. Moreover, functions like reproduction undeniably are. There are many dimensions in which men and women are essentially different. And the majority of, say, Feminists would agree that that is true. Martina Navratilova and J.K. Rowling are but two recent ones who have run afoul of the PC set for saying what everybody knows is true -- men and women are essentially different.

And I would say no intelligent person doesn't know that, and no honest person doesn't say that.

But it does not really matter what I say, because whichever anybody says, the point is simply that transgenderism is made illogical by either view. And that was the original point of the post.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
The formulation of this question says more about the paucity of your thinking than any perceived problems with gender or feminism.

You are a black and white thinker.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
You are a black and white thinker.
Hey, it's the Feminists who picked those two, and there are no alternatives to what they picked. So yeah, they're black-and-white on it. But since any middle is rationally excluded, you should maybe jut call them "right or wrong" thinkers...and I think I see which side you, yourself have chosen. :D
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm
I've not only let you do that, I've invited you to do that. It changes nothing.
But WHY let me do that and WHY invite me to do 'that',
Because you're whining pointlessly about the word "believe," when that word-choice is not necessary to the point anyway.
But I am NOT "whining pointlessly about the word "believe" at all. Rather, what I am actually doing is informing you that when you accuse me of "believing" some thing is true that the actual Truth IS; I am NOT doing what you are accusing me of doing.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm So my advice: get over it.
Get over 'what' exactly?

I suggest BEFORE you assume and/or believe some thing is true, you clarify FIRST, and then you comprehend and understand that clarification.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm So you don't "think," "imagine," "know," "assert," or any other such synonym, that "organs" make a difference between men and women?

That's what you're now saying?
That is NOT what I am now saying, nor what I was ever saying before.
Well, you've said both that "organs" distinguish women from men, and that they don't.
I have NEVER said any such thing. In fact, if I recall correctly, I asked you to prove this, last time you accused me of saying 'this'.

If, however, I am recalling incorrectly, then I am asking you to now prove that I ever said any such thing.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm Look back. If you misspoke, fine. But pick a horse and ride it, or you just seem irrational.
Telling me to "look back" to find some thing that you are accusing me of doing is completely irrational. Obviously, if you can not find it yourself, then that is a sign that is more of your own imagination than of what is actually true.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:58 pm Check your sentence there: as you've left it, it's the equivalent of "So you agree that sexual organs make a difference," because the "dis-" and "not" cancel each other out grammatically.
And is correct grammar or whatever it is called ALL of what you are concerned about here?
No. I was concerned to understand your view...if you actually have one that can be understood, which is starting to look more doubtful. You can't seem to make yourself clear...only irritable and adamant, but no more consistent than before.
This is what I have said:
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.

If you can not make sense of this, then so be it.

Obviously you can not yet makes sense of this nor have yet understood this, because each and every time you have assumed some thing so far you have been WRONG.

Once again, I suggest you STOP assuming things, as on just about every occasion you will be WRONG.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm
Do you recognize some fundamental difference between men and women?
Sure.
If yes, then what are those fundamental differences you recognize?
Oh, I'll happily tell you.

Many.

I would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine. Moreover, functions like reproduction undeniably are.
So you agree with the exact same thing I have said.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm There are many dimensions in which men and women are essentially different. And the majority of, say, Feminists would agree that that is true. Martina Navratilova and J.K. Rowling are but two recent ones who have run afoul of the PC set for saying what everybody knows is true -- men and women are essentially different.
LOL not once have you "happily told" me nor the readers what you recognize as some of the fundamental differences between men and women, besides the very obvious one that I pointed out to you way back on page 3 of this thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm And I would say no intelligent person doesn't know that, and no honest person doesn't say that.
LOL MORE. You are showing yourself to be beyond a joke now.

This is you clarifying: "I recognize fundamental differences between men and women, and, I will happily tell you what those fundamental differences are that I recognize, one of are the exact same fundamental differences that you say there are, but now I will just go on to say that there are many dimensions in which men and women are essentially different, but I am NOT going to name even one of them. I will just tell you that the majority would agree that there are many fundamental differences, and that everyone knows this is true. Men and women are essentially different but I am NOT really going to tell you HOW in any other way than what you have already shown and pointed out to us here. Oh, but I would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine. But I am NEVER going to divulge what ANY of them even could be let alone what any of them actually ARE that I recognize".

This is about one of the biggest attempts at detracting away from clarifying and answering the asked clarified question asked.

From all accounts you actually recognize absolutely NOTHING at all that makes men and women fundamentally or essentially different other than what I have already made known, that is; the sexual organs of the body.

Or, if you do actually recognize actual things that makes women and men essentially different, other than the sexual organs, then you CERTAINLY are not yet capable of being able to tell us, happily or not, what those things actually are, or even could be.

'you', "immanuel can", are behaving like a typical adult human being, in the days of when this is written, that is; Say things as though you actually KNOW what you are talking about, but when asked to clarify REVEAL and SHOW that actually you have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what you are talking about. Or, you are doing is thinking things and saying things, which you have previously learned from others, and are just copying and repeating those things and behaviors, without ever previously wondering nor considering WHY you are saying the things that you actually ARE, nor wondering and considering WHY you do the things that you actually DO.

I have suggested this before and I will suggest this again: If you are going to make a claim, then I suggest you have at least some thing to back up and support your claim BEFORE you make the claim.

You claim that you recognize there are fundamental differences between men and women.

You claim that you will also happily point out many of these fundamental differences.

You also claim that you would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine.

BUT, besides 'sexual organs' you have not pointed out any actual thing else. Using words like "physiology" and "cognitive operations" does NOT point out any thing at all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm But it does not really matter what I say, because whichever anybody says, the point is simply that transgenderism is made illogical by either view. And that was the original point of the post.
I already KNEW this ALREADY. That is WHY I have been continually specifically asking you:
Would you now like to move onto the next part of your "argument" to prove that those already held beliefs of yours are actually true, right, and correct?

Now,

1. You BELIEVE that; Transgender ideology IS incoherent.

And,

2. You are 'trying to' your hardest formulate some argument that will prove your currently and strongly held onto beliefs are true, right, and/or correct.

So, when would you like to move onto the part where you 'try to' prove that some so called "transgenderism" is illogical?

What is "transgenderism" to you anyway, to begin with? And then,

How is 'that' "illogical"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:53 am But I am NOT "whining
Yep. You are.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm This is what I have said:
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.
Here's your classic doublespeak. The sexual organs, you say, is the difference. That makes you a sex-organ essentialist.

But then you say, "There is NO difference at all" (other than the one you already admitted, sexual organs), and this makes you somehow a "non-essentialist," you think.
If you can not make sense of this, then so be it.
It's a blatantly obvious self-contradiction, so of course no sensible person can make sense of it. That's how self-contradictions work.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm
Do you recognize some fundamental difference between men and women?
Sure.
If yes, then what are those fundamental differences you recognize?
Oh, I'll happily tell you.

Many.

I would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine. Moreover, functions like reproduction undeniably are.
So you agree with the exact same thing I have said.
Wait a minute. :shock: You said sex organs were the ONLY distinctive. See above. You said nothing about cognitive operations, or any other variables. So it's not the "exact same thing," as anyone can see. Except you, apparently.

Completely mystifying.

I guess there has to be a certain amount of ability in basic logic in order for a conversation to go forward. You can't seem to keep faith with yourself about any view for more than a couple of lines. And I can't bother to sort you out anymore.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am
Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:53 am But I am NOT "whining
Yep. You are.
So, you sitting in front of a machine, believes it KNOWS, with absolute SURETY, what another is doing, somewhere else but unknown where on the planet, sitting in front of another machine.

I am NOT "whining". That OBVIOUSLY is just your own perception, which just as OBVIOUS may well be absolutely WRONG.

You can very rightly express what you THINK or BELIEVE is the case. But, just as obvious, is you could be obviously WRONG.

If you believe you can tell me what I am doing, and ARE RIGHT.

Then I could say, ' You are whining, about "me whining" ', and therefore I am ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Therefore, you should STOP whining.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:43 pm This is what I have said:
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.
Here's your classic doublespeak. The sexual organs, you say, is the difference. That makes you a sex-organ essentialist.
What is with your incessant "essentialist" believism?

I am NOT a sex-organ "essentialist".

You ARE a 'separatist' and worse still a 'religious racist separatist believist', which by all accounts is the worst and most dangerous type there is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am But then you say, "There is NO difference at all" (other than the one you already admitted, sexual organs), and this makes you somehow a "non-essentialist," you think.
No, I do NOT think this at all.

This is only what you BELIEVE is True. You do this because of the type you are. You are CLOSED off from SEEING thee actual Truth of things.

Why are you so concerned and so concentrated on this "essentialist" issue. Especially ALL you really want to do here in this thread is SHOW everyone that the idea of 'transgender' is illogical. Why do you NOT just concentrate on 'that' what you started this thread for?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am
If you can not make sense of this, then so be it.
It's a blatantly obvious self-contradiction, so of course no sensible person can make sense of it. That's how self-contradictions work.
Explain how what I ACTUAL wrote:
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.

Is supposedly a "self-contradiction".
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:18 pm
Do you recognize some fundamental difference between men and women?
Sure.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am
Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:53 am If yes, then what are those fundamental differences you recognize?
Oh, I'll happily tell you.

Many.

I would point out that not only physiology but also certain cognitive operations are specially masculine and feminine. Moreover, functions like reproduction undeniably are.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am
Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:53 am So you agree with the exact same thing I have said.
Wait a minute. :shock: You said sex organs were the ONLY distinctive.
YES I DID.

Are you seriously just noticing this, just now?

I CLEARLY EXPRESSED this on page 3, and on a few other occasions.

There being ONLY one distinction can be CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED in what I wrote on page 3.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am See above.
I have been saying the EXACT SAME thing since page 3 of this thread, and NOT "just above" in the quote.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am You said nothing about cognitive operations, or any other variables.
Of course NOT. This is because, as I clearly explained, there is NONE. 'Unless shown otherwise'.

Obviously YOU and no one else has yet SHOWN OTHERWISE. Therefore, there is NONE.

You really are very, very SLOW.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am So it's not the "exact same thing," as anyone can see. Except you, apparently.
I have been pointing out for quite a while now YOUR WRONGS. This is just ANOTHER ONE of where you have been WRONG.

Also, are you STILL 'trying to' deflect away from your COMPLETE INCAPABILITY to even just mention one other actual thing, besides sex organs, which supposedly differentiates men from women?

Until you mention and PROVE just one other thing than sex organs, then what you have been believing is true now for many years is WRONG.

A lot of your BELIEFS are WRONG. You are just yet incapable of SEEING and UNDERSTANDING this.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am Completely mystifying.
Well it should NOT BE. Considering the ACTUAL WORDS that I have been writing SINCE PAGE 3.

Nothing has changed so far in my clearly expressed views. The only real 'mystifying' thing here is that it has taken you so long to work out just this most minute and insignificant thing here, which, by the way, I CLEARLY EXPRESSED on page 3 of this thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am I guess there has to be a certain amount of ability in basic logic in order for a conversation to go forward.
This explains PERFECTLY WHY you can NOT provide just ONE example of what you say and believe is an absolute FACT.

There is NOTHING 'logical' about what you are believing and saying here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am You can't seem to keep faith with yourself about any view for more than a couple of lines.
My VIEW has NOT changed one iota.

I have just been informing you, and the readers, where YOUR assumptions and/or beliefs have been WRONG.

What you assume and/or believe I am saying and meaning does NOT mean that you are even close to being true nor right.

You are so BLINDED by your own FAITH and BELIEFS that you really have NOT been SEEING and NOTICING what has been going on here. You are so BLIND and so CLOSED that you really do not even KNOW what has been taking place here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:33 am And I can't bother to sort you out anymore.
The reason you do not want to so call "bother" anymore IS BECAUSE you can NOT substantiate your OWN claims here.

You are also now fearing and/or worrying about looking totally STUPID, for making the claims that you have and OBVIOUSLY which you have not and can not even back up and support.

Because I have SHOWN and PROVEN how unsound and how invalid your so called "argument" has been, and that your illogical and unreasonable BELIEFS could never be true nor right, your only way out now is to just say: "I cannot be bothered (to sort you out) anymore".

The way you are going you will NEVER sort of 'you', let alone 'Me'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:35 am If you believe you can tell me what I am doing, and ARE RIGHT.
It takes one more thing. It takes you being able to understand.

I'm no longer convinced that's possible. But maybe that's just a function of your age.

Fortunately, that problem will take care of itself. At least, we can hope it will.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
You are a black and white thinker.
Hey, it's the Feminists who picked those two,
Please cite.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:02 pm
You are a black and white thinker.
Hey, it's the Feminists who picked those two,
Please cite.
https://genderedinnovations.stanford.ed ... inism.html
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:42 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:35 am If you believe you can tell me what I am doing, and ARE RIGHT.
It takes one more thing. It takes you being able to understand.
Being able to understand 'what' exactly?

What is 'it' that you think, assume, and/or believe that I am not understanding?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:42 pm I'm no longer convinced that's possible. But maybe that's just a function of your age.

Fortunately, that problem will take care of itself. At least, we can hope it will.
The reason you will NEVER prove your steadfast held position and BELIEF, is because you are just plain and simply WRONG.

Even the assumption you make here in this reply is just plain and simple - WRONG.

Do you know why so many of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, inevitably end up resorting to personal judging or attacking?

If no, then it is because you can not back up and support your currently held assumptions, which you believe are true, right, and/or correct. And, when this is pointed out, then you do not know what else to do but to judge and/or attack the 'person'.

When, and if, you learn how the Mind and the brain work, then you will start to understand what has been going on here.
Post Reply